Correcting the Media Mistakes

I was listening to the Media Project on public radio station WAMC this past weekend. There came a point about 2/3s of the way through the 25-minute program that a legitimate difference in point of view emerged without the obfuscating snarkiness that prevails at times.
Rex Smith, the editor of the Times Union newspaper, indicated that when the TU publishes a story online and a part of the story is incorrect, the paper will print the retraction with the story. This is actually better than what happens in the print newspaper, where the error is made somewhere in the newspaper, and a correction shows up, generally on page 2, one or more days later.

Alan Chartock of WAMC and Elisa Streeter of WTEN-TV suggested the possibility of just amending the online story. Initially I was disinclined to consider that position, because, as the editor implied, offering the retraction puts greater responsibility for the news source to get it right the first time.

Conversely, there are circumstances that a retraction would be not only inadequate but potentially harmful. Say the headline read: “Joe Citizen indicated for child molestation.” A correction that in fact he WASN’T charged would unfortunately suggest to many that there may not have been enough evidence to indict Joe, but that he almost certainly is guilty of something, even if the D.A. can’t prove it.

Still, there are enough people who might have read that original iteration of the story that a middle ground should be sought. Something along the lines of: “An earlier version of this story contained incorrect information that has been corrected.” Now, someone can try to look up the original story in The Wayback Machine or through a cached version of the webpage, but this is less likely if nothing salacious is suggested.

11 Responses

I don’t bother with the print edition any more. Indeed, I barely bother with the on-line. I only come to this site for the blogs but since I trouble myself to do that (and will stop dead cold — much as I love a few of them — if they ever have the nerve to charge for it, which I don’t put past the TU) I do check the headlines first and will click on one or two.

So if you only do the retraction in print, I’m not likely to see it. Correct the article, mention the correction both places. Man up and admit you made a mistake and are now setting the record straight.

Of course, I’ll allow I’ll only see this retraction if I either read the article after it or it’s discussed in one of the blogs. Perhaps a blog for retractions/corrections? Now that I’d see.

Oh, and, Roger, I quite agree with you on your assessment that a correction is often too little too late where damage has already been done. Better to be scrupulous in fact checking etc. in the first place and not need to do a correction after making shambles of a person’s life or a business’ reputation.

I can’t be objective about this because I work here at the TU, but you’d never come back if we had the nerve to charge for a service we provide the community? Really?

While many of our bloggers are unpaid, the existence of timesunion.com — and the talented Web folks who make it look good and function well — aren’t free. And it’s the news content (even if you don’t read it) that helps drive traffic here, which is why advertisers pay to put their ads on the site.

All that — and more — make this and other blogs possible. And I can’t help but wonder what other business would be expected to operate under that model. I mean, no one expects Stewart’s to give away its ice cream for free.

The only thing close to that I can think of are libraries (near and dear to Roger’s heart). But those aren’t free, either. They’re paid for with tax money. Newspapers — thank God — are not.

Jordan, I can’t believe you crashed Roger’s forum with this but since you have (sorry, Roger) and in the hopes of making some progress of being heard about what we want in a hometown newspaper:

I don’t come here for the news because, sadly, TU’s reporting has gone downhill. Therefore, I’m not going to be lured here for the news. Your analogy is rather apples to oranges. I’m willing to pay for Stewart’s yummy ice cream and I go to Stewart’s because they are a convenience store and they know it and act like it. In other words, they provide what I want so that I will come.

TU does not. They have mediocre news reporting these days and bland stories I could get anywhere else. They seem to want to drive up readership by beating up on State employees. I have suggested stories by letter, e-mail and even on these blogs that have been greatly ignored. Let’s do an expose on CDTA and how dangerous it is to ride CDTA, so dangerous that after three decades of so doing I don’t any more and, no, I don’t drive. Where are the hard-hitting news stories like that that make a difference?

You’ve had in the 15 years I’ve been back in NY from a move out of state for a while exactly like one hard-hitting news story (the ghost tickets) and that didn’t exactly wow me. I’m glad it effected change but it’s not like it put me in any danger or made a real difference in my life. So pardon me while I yawn. Everything else you had that did interest me was also in all the other news outlets and not broke by your news team.

Both the TU and CDTA break my heart over how far downhill they’ve gone, btw. I’m 52 and been reading the TU since I was 5. Even when I lived in Denver, a friend sent me clippings. And CDTA is no longer user friendly, despite your glowing stories to the contrary. Yes, I know Roger will disagree with me on this. We have politely disagreed about it before.

I love the blogs and I’d miss several of them but there are certainly plenty of free blogs on the internet, so why would I pay to access the blogs here? Face it, TU knows blogs are a popular fun thing people like to do and have the blogs to draw people like me to the site. Why are you complaining that it’s working? You should be happy to hear that it does get me to come here and check the headlines first.

But, unless you start providing news that I can’t get elsewhere — and I’d have to see it to believe it — there’s utterly no reason for me to pay to access this site. I doubt you’d get many takers for the same reason subscriptions to the print edition are declinging. This is why you have advertisers. If that’s not enough to keep the site free, shrug…

Again, Roger, apologies. I did not mean to divert this thread from the subject.

hmm. why do you suppose the quality of the newspaper has declined? probably because there is significanly fewer staff at this paper now who are expected to produce more content than the smaller staff was before? hmm. why do you suppose there are fewer staff at the paper now? probably because the paper cannot afford to pay them? hmm. why do you suppose the paper can’t afford to pay them? probably because it is instead paying to produce and post the entire newspaper’s (and more)content on the website for free instead of having people pay for it like they did when Donna was 5.

No, Kate. Honestly. I don’t pay for it anymore because it’s gotten suckie. Seriously fed up with TU blaming its readers for not wanting to read it any more. The fault lies with the product. It’s no longer desirable. I checked the headlines this morning as usual before coming to blogs. Not one worth reading. I did look at the tulip pic sideshow. Nice but again not going to get me to pay to access the site.

Let’s use the bad analogy Jordan did above regarding Stewart’s ice cream. I do buy Stewart’s ice cream and, no, I don’t expect them to give it away for free though there are several ice cream places that give away free cones one day a year as a promotion though I haven’t yet seen Stewart’s do it. (That’s a day I wouldn’t be there because of the crowds; I’d rather pay for it than deal with that mess.)

Now consider why I buy Stewart’s ice cream:

1. it’s delicious, they’re yummy and have some unique flavors I haven’t seen elsewhere such as their grahamn cracker flavor (man, that one’s good)

2. no peanut warnings on non-peanut flavors; important because grandson and I are both allergic; also why Hershey gets our chocolate money

3. reasonably priced

Now let’s assume the price stays the same or even goes down but Steward’s, in these hard economic times, starts taking shortcuts and either stops manufacturing other flavors on separate equipment from those that contain peanuts or starts using cheaper ingredients that affect the taste.

Do you think I’ll continue buying Steward’s ice cream or do you think their shortsightedness (short term savings vs. long term profitablity) would cost them customers? (And don’t forget, a lost customer is a hard one to win back.) If it costs them so many customers that they are placed on an ever downward spiraling cycle making them close shops and downsize eventually running them out of business, is it the fault of those of us who stop buying their ice cream or their own?

Right now, I’m greatly appreciating the fact that so far both Stewart’s and Hershey’s have retained their common sense approach and holding my breath it continues.

Go ahead and charge for this site. But don’t come crying to me if you lose still more readers.

This is a bigger issue than can be resolved on this blog debate. However, the problem is that the newspaper/media industry is in a huge time of change where people are going to have to get used to a new format and paying for the product in a different way.

Currenly newspapers are folding all around the country because something about the old business model cannot survive in the climate of the modern ways people get information. The TU is suffering for these same reasons.

I hope when all this shakes out papers like the TU will still be around in some form. I just don’t like the attacking as if it’s the fault of simple lazyness and stupidity instead of industry struggling in a time of change.

You’re argument is based largely on the premise that there are better alternatives to the Times Union. As flawed as we may be — and we do have flaws, no doubt — we’re still the best local news outlet in the area.

The Gazette is very good, but they’ve largely pulled out of Rensselaer and Albany counties. The Troy Record has largely pulled out of Albany and points west. TV news coverage is spotty and haphazard at best.

Blogs? Blogs are great. I love them and write them. But they rely on the news coverage we provide.

I’m sorry you don’t feel any of our stories are worth reading. I see the stats everyday. Tens of thousands of people disagree with you daily.

You seem to have a chip on your shoulder about the Times Union. And that’s your right. Lots of people would like to see the Times Union go out of business, and that’s O.K., too. They deserve the kind of government they’d get without us.

What none of the people who love to hate on the Times Union seem to get is that there are still hundreds of people working their asses of here everyday.

(Set aside the fact that you’re making judgments about the quality of news stories you admit you don’t read…)

Is the product as good as it used to be? No, maybe not. But it’s not because we decided one day to start phoning it in and put out a crappy product. Market forces beyond the paper’s control (and some in the paper’s control) have put huge pressure on the company that owns us — and the newspaper industry in general. We have fewer reporters, fewer photographers, fewer editors, fewer ad folks and so on…

In fact, you could argue one of the biggest mistakes newspapers ever made was putting our content free online in the first place, where people like yourself developed a sense of entitlement to the Times Union’s product (and other news)without feeling an obligation to contribute anything toward the costs of producing.

Our bad. And while I have no idea whether the Times Union will start charging for all or some of its website, that’s certainly direction much of the industry seems to be moving in.

Consider this, though: If you like our blogs so much (and, by the way, I’m glad you do), who would be harmed more if you decided not to come back anymore?

Since you’re already not a paying customer, it seems like it wouldn’t be us.

I would love to continue this conversation. My phone number is 454-5445. But I’ve got to get back to work. News calls, even if you don’t plan to read it.

Wow, Jordan and Kate, what hate! Geeze, Louise. I see you suffer from the delusion that I’d still be buying the paper if you hadn’t put it on-line free. I wouldn’t and it’s for the same reason I don’t bother with much of your stories. (I do check the headlines before coming here and do occassionally click on a story; I just find very little worth reading and nothing worth paying for but way to assume.)

Namely, because I’m invariably disappointed with the few I do click on and read. As I said, if you could read, was that I stopped reading because the reporting grew so bad. So sorry for liking the blogs. Geesh. It’s not a sense of entitlement. You’re perfectly free to charge. All I was saying, is I wouldn’t be coming here any more if you do because you ain’t worth paying for.

And enough of this discussion. I’d continue it if you had any interest in why I’m dissatisfied — important feedback to the TU btw — but apparently all you’re interested in is attacking me for one innocent little comment. Have you not read the rules about posting i.e., no personal attacks?

As for charging, try it. It might just bury the TU but good luck to you. I suspect you’ll see those hits your loving go way down and explain that to your advertisers just as you probably have to do to your print advertisers as to why sales are waaaayyy down.

One of the key appeals to print media is the “frozen in amber” nature of it . . . at some point, each day, the story is LOCKED, and can only be changed by, as Roger notes, retraction. I like that . . . since the Wayback Machine is way hit-or-miss when it comes to trying to get a real-time sense of a story’s evolution.

Anyway . . . my two cents too late, for what it’s worth!!!

Note: The Times Union is not responsible for posts and comments written by non-staff members.